BabySens: An Ethical Framework for Developmentally-Aligned Infant-Technology

Authors

  • Oladapo Joseph Elugbadebo

    Computer Science Department, Federal College of Education, Abeokuta 110119, Nigeria
  • Femi Temitope Johnson

    Department of Artificial Intelligence, Faculty of Computing, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta 110111, Nigeria
  • Iyanu Tomiwa Durotola

    Computer Science Department, Maharishi International University, Fairfield, IA 52557, USA
  • Folurera Abiodun

    Department of Computer Technology, Yaba College of Technology, Lagos 101245, Nigeria

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/jeis.v7i2.11654
Received: 20 July 2025 | Revised: 10 September 2025 | Accepted: 17 September 2025 | Published Online: 25 September 2025

Abstract

Digital device usage now transcends age and demographic boundaries, having become commonplace among children from all racial and ethnic groups. The rapid proliferation of touch screen use among infants (6–24 months) has outpaced evidence-based design standards, creating an urgent need for developmentally-grounded interfaces. In this paper, BabySens-an ethical Infant-Centered HCI Design (ICHD) framework that integrates stage-aligned interactions adapting to sensorimotor abilities, real-time scaffolding via on-device ML, built-in guardrails, and hybrid physical-digital play is developed using Bluetooth-connected toys. Through an approved and controlled lab study with infants (N = 12), our object permanence teaching prototype demonstrated significantly higher touch accuracy of 83–90% CI [78%, 88%] vs. 52% [45%, 59%] in controls; *p* < 0.001, Cohen’s *d* = 1.87) and no sustained distress events compared to commercial apps, with positive transfer effects to real-world tasks (ρ = 0.41). Machine learning analysis revealed that the adaptive system reduced error distances by 68% for infants less than 12 months. These pilot study results challenge current "baby-proofing" approaches, showing that developmental alignment enhances efficacy while reducing risks. This paper emphasizes the need for larger-scale validation and advocate for industry standards based on Piagetian developmental milestones and parental mediation tools, offering BabySens as a concrete template for responsible infant-tech design that prioritizes learning over engagement.

Keywords:

Infant-Computer Interaction; Ethical Design; Adaptive Interfaces; Cognitive Development; Responsive Technology

References

[1] Radesky, J., Schumacher, J., Zuckerman, B., 2015. Mobile and interactive media use by young children: The good, the bad, and the unknown. Pediatrics. 135(1), 1–3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-2251

[2] Council on Communications and Media, Hill, D., Ameenuddin, N., et al., 2016. Media and young minds. Pediatrics. 138(5), e20162591. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2591

[3] Yip, J.C., Sobel, K., Pitt, C., et al., 2017. Examining adult–child interactions in intergenerational participatory design. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 6–11 May 2017; pp. 5742–5754. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025787

[4] Hiniker, A., Sobel, K., Suh, H., et al., 2015. Texting while parenting: How adults use mobile phones while caring for children at the playground. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, South Korea, 18–23 April 2015; pp. 727–736. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702199

[5] Anderson, D.R., Pempek, T.A., 2005. Television and very young children. American Behavioral Scientist. 48(5), 505–522. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764204271506

[6] Kirkorian, H.L., Choi, K., Pempek, T.A., 2016. Toddlers’ word learning from contingent and noncontingent video on touch screens. Child Development. 87(2), 405–413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12508

[7] Hoehl, S., Fairhurst, M., Schirmer, A., 2021. Interactional synchrony: Signals, mechanisms, and benefits. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 16(1–2), 5–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaa024

[8] Zack, E., Barr, R., Gerhardstein, P., et al., 2009. Infant imitation from television using novel touch screen technology. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 27(1), 13–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1348/026151008x334700

[9] Baillargeon, R., 2004. Infants’ reasoning about hidden objects: Evidence for event-general and event-specific expectations. Developmental Science. 7(4), 391–424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00357.x

[10] Frank, M.C., Bergelson, E., Bergmann, C., et al., 2021. A collaborative approach to infant research: Promoting reproducibility, best practices, and theory-building. Infancy. 22(4), 421–435. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12182

[11] Gredebäck, G., Johnson, S., von Hofsten, C., 2009. Eye tracking in infancy research. Developmental Neuropsychology. 35(1), 1–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/87565640903325758

[12] Antle, A.N., Wise, A.F., 2013. Getting down to details: Using theories of cognition and learning to inform tangible user interface design. Interacting with Computers. 25(1), 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iws007

[13] Molnar, A.R., 1997. Computers in education: A brief history. T.H.E. Journal. 24(11), 63–68.

[14] Suppes, P., Morningstar, M., 1969. Computer-assisted instruction. Science. 166(3903), 343–350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.166.3903.343

[15] Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., et al., 2020. The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review. Available from: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning (cited 27 March 2025).

[16] Tamim, R.M., Bernard, R.M., Borokhovski, E., et al., 2011. What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research. 81(1), 4–28.

[17] Cheung, A.C.K., Slavin, R.E., 2013. The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K–12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review. 9, 88–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.001

[18] Sung, Y.T., Chang, K.E., Liu, T.C., 2017. The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education. 94, 252–275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008

[19] Elugbadebo, O., Johnson, F., 2020. Computer usage proficiency towards pedagogical knowledge and learning improvement. Ukrainian Journal of Educational Studies and Information Technology. 8(4), 52–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32919/uesit.2020.04.05

[20] Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V.I., et al., 2021. Emergency remote teaching in higher education: Mapping the first global online semester. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 18(1), 50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00282-x

[21] Massaroni, V., Delle Donne, V., Marra, C., et al., 2023. The relationship between language and technology: How screen time affects language development in early life—A systematic review. Brain Sciences. 14(1), 27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14010027

[22] Myers, L.J., Crawford, E., Murphy, C., et al., 2018. Eyes in the room trump eyes on the screen: Effects of a responsive co-viewer on toddlers’ responses to and learning from video chat. Journal of Children and Media. 12(3), 275–294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2018.1425889

[23] Oakes, L.M., Ellis, A.E., 2013. An eye-tracking investigation of developmental changes in infants' exploration of upright and inverted human faces. Infancy. 18(1), 134–148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7078.2011.00107.x

[24] Thelen, E., Smith, L.B., 1994. A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA.

[25] Thelen, E., Smith, L.B., 2006. Dynamic systems theories. In: Damon, W., Lerner, R.M. (Eds.). Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical Models of Human Development, 6th ed. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA. pp. 258–312.

[26] Libertus, K., Landa, R.J., 2014. Scaffolded reaching experiences encourage grasping activity in infants at high risk for autism. Frontiers in Psychology. 5, 1071, 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01071

[27] Rocha, N.A., Silva, F.P., Tudella, E., 2006. The impact of object size and rigidity on infant reaching. Infant Behavior and Development. 29(2), 251–261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2005.12.007

[28] Long, B., Xiang, V., Stojanov, S., et al., 2024. The BabyView dataset: High-resolution egocentric videos of infants’ and young children’s everyday experiences. arXiv preprint. arXiv:2406.10447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.10447

[29] Dechemi, A., Karydis, K., 2024. E-BabyNet: Enhanced action recognition of infant reaching in unconstrained environments. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering. 32, 1679–1686. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2024.3392161

Downloads

How to Cite

Elugbadebo, O. J., Johnson, F. T., Durotola, I. T., & Abiodun, F. (2025). BabySens: An Ethical Framework for Developmentally-Aligned Infant-Technology . Journal of Electronic & Information Systems, 7(2), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.30564/jeis.v7i2.11654

Issue

Vol. 7 , Iss. 2 (October 2025)

Article Type

ARTICLE

License

Copyright © 2025 Oladapo Joseph Elugbadebo, Femi Temitope Johnson, Iyanu Tomiwa Durotola, Folurera Abiodun

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC